Legalization of Pot Good for Tobacco Industry, Sales, & Use?

[12pups]

I started a new thread rather than continue as a tangential discussion in an older thread about a Florida county. I don't want this to be stricken by the mods here because it's at first perceived to be about *marijuana*, because no, that is not the angle of my comments. I'm trying to unravel how come no one was seeing the double-standard as it's shaping up and if the tobacco industry couldn't get incidental benefits from this pot legalization movement.
I was talking to a former drug runner today about this (he's a book client who is the last surviving member of a ‘60s-era cartel). He's from Salem but lived a long time in Seattle. So we were talking about the current legalization of pot even while there are bills being drafted to make it harder to smoke tobacco.
He actually thought pot would be made legal back in the late '60s. He's now a Born Again Christian (since '87) and has not been involved at all in drugs for 28 years. He had no idea how hard anti-tobacco folks were gunning now for luxury tobacco hobbyists.
His old Haight Ashbury home is now in the midst of legalized marijuana finally. Oregon, where he lives now, has its own bill in the works to legalize recreational marijuana now. I imagine others states are as well?
So I told him it gives me hope. It pot can make it, someday people will make tobacco socially acceptable.
I was just joking -- Turns out that’s exactly what some people think will happen. The more states decriminalize and even commercialize the sale of marijuana for recreational use, the more the tobacco industry should benefit from it. (Though there was talk of some fearing it as a competitor product).
http://www.milbank.org/uploads/documents/featured-articles/pdf/Milbank_Quarterly_Vol-92_No-2_2014_The_Tobacco_Industry_and_Marijuana_Legalization.pdf
The big players aren’t missing out on the implications. I'm learning that tobacco companies themselves have historically had an interest in legalizing marijuana, since the late ‘60s. They have the financial resources to take the marijuana industry over, and they would likely begin tweaking the product, same as they do for tobaccos, with branded blends and secret formulas that would take marijuana smoking to a new level.
In this particular discussion, then, I would hope the mods make an exception and allow this thread, because marijuana legalization and laws regarding tobacco use are inextricably related.
I could care less about who gets to smoke marijuana. I'm not into it and have no interest in it. But if it reverses the trend of clamping down on tobacco manufacture, sales, shipping and consumption, I think we need to hear about that in a tobacco-related forum like this one.
I am counting on there being among us a number of people who can speak to this. Some of you are in tobacco retail. Maybe some have ties to tobacco production? What's the buzz at the moment as to how this eventually affects law regarding tobacco use in this or that state?

 

[andrew]

Unfortunately I doubt it, tobacco doesn't turn you into a brainless zombie that dulls your senses so you become comfortable with whatever bs the government is doing because you're too high to care.

. It pot can make it, someday people will make tobacco socially acceptable.

Tobacco used to be socially acceptable, teachers could smoke in the classroom, you could smoke in grocery stores, pretty much anywhere.

They have the financial resources to take the marijuana industry over, and they would likely begin tweaking the product, same as they do for tobaccos, with branded blends and secret formulas that would take marijuana smoking to a new level.

It would probably suck, it would take the marijuana industry which is now like the pipe tobacco industry that prides itself on many different blends and having nice natural organic weed and making it into a watered down version with some sort of added chemicals to make you crave it more, and knock out all the small growers making killer products. Even though nicotine is linked to a decrease in Alzheimer's disease among other things I doubt the weed smokers would ever recognize there are benefits to tobacco use. They'd point to stuff like they can just ingest it and not smoke it and get the benefits of it whereas we'll always smoke it.

 

[sablebrush52]

The only way that the legalization of pot may have a beneficial effect on legislation against tobacco use resides in the central argument for legalizing the use of marijuana, which is that prohibition doesn't work and that prohibition has the side effect of providing a lucrative market for organized crime while tying up resources and wasting taxpayer dollars on the prosecution of users. But I don't expect that any such benefit would be profound.
I expect that legalization of marijuana will come with a set of regulations and punishments, and may not be all that dissimilar to regulations being imposed on tobacco use, with added regulations involving behavior while being intoxicated. Anyone who expects that they will be able to stroll down a street whist smoking a fatty may be in for a disappointment. Prohibition doesn't work, which may be used to overturning tobacco use rulings of a similar kind, but that doesn't mean that severe restrictions can't be enacted in place of an outright prohibition.

 

[newbroom]

Man, you should have seen the post I didn't send. I am a brainless zombie.

 

[sablebrush52]

One other point. As far as big tobacco seizing the opportunity to control the marijuana market, good luck. It doesn't take the same level of resources to grow a pot plant, as it does to grow a tobacco plant. Any fool with a porch, a pot, potting soil and water can grow their own. And, many do just that.

 

[numbersix]

Unfortunately I doubt it, tobacco doesn't turn you into a brainless zombie that dulls your senses so you become comfortable with whatever bs the government is doing because you're too high to care.

lol! There's a lot of truth in that statement I think.
Pot IMO should be legal. No one should be thrown in jail for smoking a natural plant - the entire idea is ridiculous. Plus it creates a prohibition-era form of illegal trade. But the entire situation (pot becoming legal and tobacco becoming illegal) is just bizarre.
People, governments and politicians are not "logical" and often cannot be reasoned with. We have a tidal wave of anti-tobacco feelings out there and logic doesn't always play well with emotion.

 

[12pups]

The difficulty between growing quality tobacco and growing quality pot -- hadn't thought of that. Thanks, sablebrush. Should it ever be legalized to the point where you could not only buy it, but grow it for your own use without complicated and expensive licensing, why would anyone with a garden or space along the garage (or space in the basement) spend money on it?
Tobacco, on the other hand, I think from the discussions posted in here on that topic, it's safe to say very few people can invest the time, care and protocols to make it worth growing your own.
Sure took the excitement out of my hope for a fair comparison. Ain't one.
As for "prohibition didn't work," I think we have to qualify that. Prevention Research Institute of Lexicon, KY, dedicates itself to science-based information on physical and psychological effects of alcohol and drugs. I used to teach some of their courses. Love those people! Committed to fact, not propaganda. They look to health records after prohibition and before. Hard to do it "during," since it was covered up. There had been sort of a public epidemic of cirrhosis of the liver and pancreatitis, etc., before prohibition. After prohibition, it was a bare fraction of what it had been. The "failure" of prohibition was government corruption. Government officials on the take.
I think after prohibition, whatever faith the public had for government control of any substance was never going to be restored.
Healthwise, it had a profound effect on people. PRI said that after prohibition, the rate of drinking never rose to more than 1/8th of what it had been before prohibition.
Next, that a law is broken can't be justification itself for decriminalization. That the law is violated as much as it is concerning marijuana, well, maybe.
But now we're back to whether the health risks associated with marijuana are any different than for tobacco. Legislation that gains any momentum for increasing limitations on tobacco for "health concerns" can't be supported by the same people who want to legitimize marijuana smoking, can it?


My hope was that, as numberix said, the government would get out of it, for both. I don't even like riding in those states that require motorcycle helmets on the highway. After about 17-23 mph of combined velocity, all the helmet does is snap your neck. Helmets do not protect your neck. They just add mass for it to support. The government isn't protecting me the way I think I should be protected. (Though personally, I wear a helmut on the highway sometimes just to keep my hair in place and prevent rider's scalp tingle).
Local and state governments try to argue they are "protecting" us. I am not their baby. I don't need Mommy and Daddy Government to "protect me." I can figure it out.
So the most rational counter argument to my protest I don't need their protection is, I'm not protecting *you*, child; I'm protecting taxpayers and insurance subscribers from paying for your self-inflicted stupidities.
That's pretty much the same justification used by government to regulate marijuana and tobacco use, isn't it? Saving tax payers and insurance premium payers from paying for self-inflicted harm by other people? Or saving company owners from the financial burden of alllllll thhhhhhat losssssst timmmmmmme for tobacco-related illnesses and smoking breaks. (Though repeatedly asserted as fact, I'm not sure that was ever convincingly proven; as one book pointed out, a guy with a cigarette in a production line will bury a nonsmoker in production comparisons--unless you don't let him smoke, and then he falls way behind).
Examples of proposed legislation or existing legislation that lean on that principle of "protecting pocketbooks" are
- Take the risk of mountain climbing. If you need to be rescued, reimburse the cost of saving you out of your own pocket. For the rest of your life.
- Ride without your helmet at your own risk. If you suffer brain injury, cost comes out of your own pocket. Insurance companies don't have to cover you without additional riders (paper kind, not motorcycle kind). Your estate might not cover it, in which case we'll just push you to the curb and hope your angels intervene for you, who were caught napping when you had the collision in the first place.
Numbersix... do you see a way to get around this complexity, assigning financial responsibility to those who willfully engage in behaviors with increased health risks?

 

[northernneil]

The difficulty between growing quality tobacco and growing quality pot -- hadn't thought of that. Thanks, sablebrush. Should it ever be legalized to the point where you could not only buy it, but grow it for your own use without complicated and expensive licensing, why would anyone with a garden or space along the garage (or space in the basement) spend money on it?

I love gardening, but most people do not. There is no questions that some people would just grow their own, but I feel the majority would choose to buy it rather than grow it. I mean most people buy tomatoes even though they are pretty easy to grow.

 

[12pups]

A fair point.

 

[numbersix]

Numbersix... do you see a way to get around this complexity

Sadly I really do not see a way around this situation.
But I do not understand what you mean by: "assigning financial responsibility to those who willfully engage in behaviors with increased health risks?"
I guess I am not sure how that relates to my previous statement.

 

[mso489]

For some reason, our culture is stuck on avoiding the middle way and balance in general. Every discussion is

polar and binary, and anyone who doesn't follow that pattern is thought of as indecisive and/or weak. Life itself

depends on a whole series of incredible circumstances of balance, some of this and some of that in measured

proportion. So with the pot/tobacco discussion. If anyone is completely getting their own way, something is

miserably wrong. How far wrong do we have to go before we realize and act on that -- in so many areas.

 

[12pups]

@numbersix
I don't know what I'm talking about anymore. I'm running in circles. I should just go have a bowl (and it's lunchtime, so I think I will!)
I like the idea, as you said, that the government should let us smoke whatever we want.
But that's hampered by the reality that a society really isn't a bunch of individuals just all running around on their own, independent of each other. We impact each other. Instead of just banning this thing and restricting the other, maybe one way around it is to say, "Okay, but the freedom to smoke also comes with responsibility for the consequences if incurred. You get lung cancer, you're on your own. You won't get government assistance or access to insurance benefits. You did it to yourself."
Quite a few times -- and a couple even in this forum -- I've read people asserting "I know the risks. They are mine to take." How much of our legislation is based on the opposite premise: "No. They're not. You cost us all. Be cause we have to pay for damage you do to yourself."
If so... I'm back where I was: the double standard of trying to eliminate tobacco smoking while now legitimizing marijuana smoking.
I think I will give up on this, though. Couple of people have already echoed John Henry Newman's complaint: Reason is the slave of passion. Laws merely reflect what a vocal majority wants, regardless of whether it truly makes sense.
Quitting the topic. Off to other things now.

 

[sablebrush52]

Interesting point about states with helmet laws as well as those without. Last year, when my sister-in-law was having liver transplant surgery, I learned that the bulk of organ donors came from states that do not have helmet laws. Some of the best transplant centers are located to be close to those states to minimize the time between harvesting and transplantation.

 

[plateauguy]

Unfortunately I doubt it, tobacco doesn't turn you into a brainless zombie that dulls your senses so you become comfortable with whatever bs the government is doing because you're too high to care.

As a pipe smoker, I have absolutely no wish to be grouped with pot smokers.
This weekend I met a Washington pot grower and obviously he had sampled his wares. All I could think of was, "Ugh, who'd want to do that to themselves? He's acting like a fool."
I am a firm believer in personal responsibility. You play, you pay (usually in more than one way).

 

[adam12]

This thread completely justifies why this forum is head and shoulders above every other pipe forum. Straight up no joke.

 

[andrew]

I would argue it's much harder and time consuming to grow the quality of weed that is sought after these days than tobacco. Sure you can have a pot plant on your porch that will grow, but it doesn't mean it will be a good product. Growing quality weed is very time consuming and you have to be on top of everything, from ph levels to light exposure to type of light. Pretty much all good weed comes from indoors and is easily 4 times as strong as what was around 40 years ago. All the states that have legal weed are complaining now as it used to cost them about 150$ an ounce, now buying it costs them 400$ an ounce

 

[txbeerboy]

Tobacco smokers have hurt their image badly. I don't think it will come back. They were a nasty breed of people. They would walk off and leave a cigarette just smoldering for everyone in a restaurant to enjoy. They threw cigarette butts in urinals and toilets. They dumped their car ashtrays in the roads at red lights and in parking lots. Nasty people in the grocery store would drop a cigarette and stepped on it in the floor walk away and leave it there for some one to clean up. They can pat themselves on the back for some of the treatment they are getting these days. Marijuana users do not do these things at least not yet.

 

[newbroom]

Tobacco smokers have hurt their image badly. I don't think it will come back. They were a nasty breed of people.

Since becoming a pipe smoker recently, I've been more observant about scenes I watch from movies and television back when the cigarette was smoked by everyone, everywhere. I saw one recently where the Emergency Room doctor arrived to the 'nurses station'...with a butt in his mouth and during the scene he drops it on the floor and toes it out. It's incredible how this product was marketed so ubiquitously even if it wasn't branded.

 

[lochinvar]

It won't help. You have to understand that the non smoking campaigns and laws are not about public health, if it were tobacco would be banned by now. The government doesn't care about you, they care about the money you send them. The point of the anti-tobacco campaigns are to create sufficient justification to enlarge the governments revenue stream via taxes and regulatory burden. In the same vein, they will ignore the very detrimental health and social affects of pot till they have a larger, more ingrained and sustainable income stream, and then we will see the same thing that happened to tobacco happen to pot.

 

[12pups]

In Iowa some years back, Governor Branstad (Braindead, to others) spoke out to defend huge rises in tobacco tax. Without stopping to take a sip of water or even another breath, he gave its two most important justifications:
1 - It would tend to make people stop smoking altogether, as it was too expensive.
2 - It would generate massive amounts of revenue for state programs.
This is the reason, I think, mouths come with two sides. Or, this too is possible: He might have thought smokers would keep purchasing it, but just stare at it because it was too dear to light? Can't think of any other way point 2 could come from point 1.